Culture Clips – January 23, 2007

Can We Judge Religions?

From 9-11 to this day, callers to my syndicated radio show have asked: "Is Islam a religion of violence?" And since 9-11, I have given the same response: "I don't judge religions; I judge practitioners."

It is easy to dismiss this response as a politically correct cop-out, but there are good reasons for this response.

First, in medieval, or even parts of early modern, Europe many people would have asked, "Is Christianity a religion of violence?" And 2,000-3,000 years ago, people might have asked, "Is Judaism a religion of violence?"

Second, the question is often impossible to answer because religions are almost never unified in their values (and often not even in their theology). For example, most evangelical Christians have almost no values in common with fellow Christians of the National Council of Churches (NCC).

Conservative Protestant Christians share far more values with traditional Catholics, Orthodox Jews and Mormons than with fellow Protestant Christians of the NCC. And liberal Jews (not only secular ones, but many Conservative and most Reform Jews) share more values with liberal Christians and liberal atheists than with Orthodox Jews.

So when assessing Christianity or Judaism, which Christianity and which Judaism are we assessing?

Third, when groups are violent, how much of their violence is directly caused by their religion — or by their irreligion? Alongside Hitler (who believed in no religion), Stalin and Mao were history's greatest mass murderers, and they were atheists. Could one have asked, "Is atheism a violent ideology?" As for religious evildoers, did European Christians who supported the Nazis do so because of, or despite, their religion?

Fourth, even when a group does attribute its violence to its religion, as in the case of Muslim terrorists, does that mean the religion itself preaches violence?

Dennis Prager
Townhall
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/Dennis
Prager/2007/01/23/can_we_judge_religions

--

Are Women Giving Up on Marriage?

Did you know that a majority of American women now live without husbands? I didn't either, but last week the New York Times announced it on Page 1: "51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse."

Taken at face value, that's a pretty disquieting statistic. If society is to flourish and perpetuate itself, it must uphold marriage as a social ideal — it must raise boys and girls in a culture that encourages them to eventually marry a partner of the opposite sex, make stable and loving homes together, and have children who will one day form successful marriages of their own. The news that most American women now live without husbands suggests that society's "ideal" is dwindling to a minority taste.

"At one end of the age spectrum, women are marrying later or living with unmarried partners more often and for longer periods," reporter Sam Roberts notes. "At the other end, women are living longer as widows and, after a divorce, are more likely than men to delay remarriage, sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom."

That delight is voiced by nearly every woman quoted in the story. "The benefits were completely unforeseen for me," says a 59-year-old divorcee, "the free time, the amount of time I get to spend with friends, the time I have alone, which I value tremendously, the flexibility in terms of work, travel, and cultural events." Such are the joys of non marriage, another woman exults, that "every day is like a present."

Roberts quotes William Frey of the Brookings Institution, who describes this apparently happy husbandless majority as "a clear tipping point, reflecting the culmination of post-1960 trends associated with greater independence and more flexible lifestyles for women."

Well, maybe. Or maybe not. For when you try to pin down the numbers, Roberts's startling finding turns out to depend on some awfully strained definitions.

Jeff Jacoby
Townhall
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JeffJacoby/
2007/01/22/are_women_giving_up_on_marriage

--
Lies and Fraud of Roe v. Wade

Ironically, [Robert] Bork admits that for most of his life he was pro-abortion. But he was not pro-Roe.

As Bork explained in his best-selling book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah:

If Bork approved abortion at the time of Roe v. Wade (he has since come around to a very different position), why would he oppose the Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal?
It was because, as a constitutional expert and an originalist, Robert Bork knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the U.S. Constitution in no way encompassed a "right" to abortion.

"I objected to Roe v. Wade the moment it was decided," Bork wrote, "not because of any doubts about abortion, but because the decision was a radical deformation of the Constitution. The Constitution has nothing to say about abortion, leaving it, like most subjects, to the judgment and moral sense of the American people and their elected representatives."

Bork compared Roe to another infamous ruling: "Roe and the decisions reaffirming it are equal in their audacity and abuse of judicial office to Dred Scott v. Sanford. Just as Dred Scott forced a southern pro-slavery position on the nation, Roe is nothing more than the Supreme Court's imposition on us of the morality of our cultural elites."

And what, exactly, was the "morality of our cultural elites"?

Why, "freedom and equality" of course. But not the kind of "freedom and equality" the founders valued and fought and died for.

Bork offers a disturbing insight into the radical feminist-inspired pro-abortion worldview behind Roe v. Wade. "No amount of discussion, no citation of evidence, can alter the opinions of radical feminists about abortion," Bork states.

Robert Bork
WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53872